coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.
5.  The applicant sued the local Social Security Committee for the unpaid allowances.
6.  By judgment of 25 October 2000, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 3,546.56 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment became final on 21 December 2000. On 30 October 2002 the applicant received RUB 1,409.72.
7.  By judgment of 27 June 2003, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 19,315.50. On 19 August 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The monies were paid to the applicant on 17 December 2004. On 30 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,204.51 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 27 June 2003. It appears that the judgment of 30 May 2005 was not enforced.
8.  By judgment of 29 December 2003, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50. On 8 January 2004 the judgment became final. The monies were paid to the applicant on 3 August 2005. On 27 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,696.79 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 29 December 2003. It appears that the judgment of 27 September 2005 was not enforced.
9.  On 2 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. On 12 March 2004 the judgment became final. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
10.  On 5 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52 and increased her monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.84. On 17 May 2004 the judgment became final. The lump sum was paid to the applicant on 11 November 2005. On 10 January 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,499.48 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 5 May 2004. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
11.  On 3 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 and increased her monthly commodity allowance to RUB 679.78. On 15 June 2004 the judgment became final. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 6 November 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
6.  On 3 March 1997 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with having negligently caused a traffic accident.
7.  After having held three hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts, on 11 October 2001 the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and a fine.
8.  On appeal, on 12 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the applicant, after having obtained the opinion of another expert.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Smolensk.
5.  On 2 July 1996 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which a private company was obliged to reimburse the applicant's share in the company's capital stock. On 4 November 1996 the applicant also obtained a court order, which obliged the above company to pay him salary arrears.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice challenging the efficiency of the State Bailiff's Service in the enforcement proceedings and claiming damages.
7.  By a judgment of 27 August 2001 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Smolensk acknowledged that the lack of activity of behalf of the bailiffs made the enforcement of the judgment of 2 July 1996 and the court order of 4 November 1996 impossible and obliged the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant 27,403.47 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and interest at the annual rate of 25%. On 12 March 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2001 on appeal.
8.  On 9 April 2002 the warrant of execution was issued to the applicant, which he submitted to the State Bailiffs' Service on 6 May 2002. However, on 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the warrant of execution to the applicant and informed him that he should submit it to the Federal Treasury.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant submitted the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 14 June 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the warrant of execution to the applicant for the following reasons: the judgment of 27 August 2001 did not indicate which of the debtor's accounts the sum adjudicated by the court should be debited to, the copy of the judgment was not duly certified and the warrant of execution contained no indication as to the deadline for its submission.
10.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant again attempted to submit the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 7 October 2002 the Federal Treasury once again returned the warrant of execution to the applicant, because it contained certain corrections, whereas it should have been filled out accurately.
11.  The judgment of 27 August 2001 has remained unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 2 November 1990 the applicant brought, on behalf of her minor daughter, a paternity claim against the child's purported father, a man of German nationality and residence. She also sought the payment of maintenance.
6.  After several hearings, on 23 November 1992 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court requested, as a measure of international legal assistance, the German authorities to carry out a blood group test on the respondent. The result was received by the court on 25 May 1994. On 9 January 1995 a medical expert opinion based on these results was submitted to the court.
7.  On 18 April 1995 the court requested the German authorities to perform a chromosome test on the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, the requested samples did not arrive until 24 February 1999. On 7 April 1999 a further medical opinion based on the results was submitted to the court.
8.  On 18 May 2000 the District Court found for the plaintiff, established the respondent's paternity and ordered him to pay maintenance.
9.  On 19 December 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment in a final decision. Subsequently, administrative proceedings were set in motion in order to establish the daughter's family name.
10.  As the father proved unwilling to comply voluntarily with the court decisions, on 16 December 2002 the applicant requested the Pest Central District Court to initiate enforcement proceedings against him.
11.  On 3 June 2003 the case file reached the Ministry of Justice for further action.
12.  On 8 December 2003 the Department of Private International Law within the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the competent German authority (“Bundesverwaltungsamt”) had ordered the father to settle his debts.
13.  A first payment was effected by the father in April 2004. It appears that the payments were stopped in August 2006 because the daughter had reached 18 years of age in September 2006, and a dispute then arose as to whether the obligation to pay maintenance continued because the daughter was still a full-time student.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  The applicant is a history teacher and a member of Eğitim-Sen, a trade union formed by public employees working in the domain of education. He was working at the Diyarbakır Atatürk High School at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.
6.  On 26 and 27 October 1998, in response to the call made by the Diyarbakır branch of the Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – hereinafter referred to as the “KESK”), of which Eğitim-Sen is a member, the applicant arrived at his workplace wearing a rosette with the slogan “The exiles cannot intimidate us – KESK Diyarbakır”, to protest against the transfer of public officials, who were members of trade unions, to other posts outside of the state of emergency region.
7.  On 28 May 1999, upon the decision of the Governor of the state of emergency region and in accordance with Article 4 (g) of Legislative Decree no. 285, the Ministry of Education transferred the applicant to a post in a school in Giresun.
8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a petition with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court and requested the annulment his transfer to Giresun.
9.  On 14 June 2000 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request, without examining the merits of the case. The court noted that Article 7 of Legislative Decree no. 285 precluded any application to the administrative courts for the purpose of setting aside an administrative act performed pursuant to that Decree.
10.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 14 June 2000. In his petition, the applicant contended that the provision contained in Article 7 of Legislative Decree no. 285 was in violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
11.  On 18 October 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. This judgment was served on the applicant on 12 December 2001.
12.  In their observations, the Government informed the Court that, on 21 June 2006, the applicant was transferred to a school in Diyarbakır, upon his request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 4 December 1995 the applicant complained to the Budapest III District Municipality about the nuisance her neighbour was causing by using her flat as a hairdressing salon. On 5 March 1996 the Municipality dismissed the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat in question as a hairdressing salon. The decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office on 2 May 1996. The neighbour sought judicial review. The applicant, as a person whose lawful interest was at stake, was party to these and the ensuing administrative proceedings, under section 3(4) of the Code of Administrative Procedure as in force at the material time.
6.  On 29 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.
7.  On 28 August 1998 the District Municipality issued the permit requested by the neighbour. On 3 February 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.
8.  The District Municipality again issued the permit in question on 31 May 1999. On 24 September 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.
9.  On 23 April 2001 the District Municipality discontinued the administrative proceedings. On 19 July 2001 this decision was quashed by the Budapest Administrative Office.
10.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 29 October 2001 the District Municipality prohibited the neighbour from continuing to use the flat as a hairdressing salon. On 4 January 2002 this decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office.
11.  The neighbour sought judicial review. On 4 November 2003 the applicant’s intervention in these proceedings was allowed.
12.  On 26 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the prohibition, observing that the administrative authorities had never actually completed the principal proceedings concerning the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat as a hairdressing salon.
13.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 10 June 2005 the District Municipality issued the leave requested. On 28 June 2005 the applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 1 August 2005.
14.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant sought judicial review under section 327(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the information currently in the case file, the proceedings are still pending; a hearing took place on 12 December 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bytom.
5.  On 21 October 2002 the applicant was arrested. By a decision of 24 October 2002 the District Court in Wodzisław Śląski remanded him in custody on charges connected with organised crime. It had regard to evidence gathered by the prosecuting authorities which indicated that the applicant had committed the offences concerned. The applicant appealed, to no avail.
6.  The same court subsequently extended the applicant's detention by decisions of, inter alia, 10 July and 7 October 2003 and 7 March 2004, until, respectively, 15 October 2003, 19 January and 19 July 2004. The court relied on the evidence gathered in the case which pointed to the likelihood of the applicant's guilt. It was also of the view that the applicant, if released, could hinder the proper course of the investigations and judicial proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses and by colluding with his co-accused. It noted that many persons appeared to have been involved in the commission of the offences concerned and that it was therefore necessary to obtain a considerable amount of evidence. It also had regard to the applicant's criminal record.
7.  On numerous other occasions the prosecuting authorities refused to release the applicant, relying on the same arguments and referring to the evidence gathered in the investigation.
8.  On an unspecified number of occasions the applicant was allowed to see his wife during his detention. Between 15 December 2002, the date on which the applicant's wife gave birth to a son, and 21 November 2003 the applicant saw her and his son on at least three occasions.
9.  On 30 September 2003 the prosecuting authorities lodged a bill of indictment with the Wodzislaw Śląski District Court. The applicant was charged with multiple counts of fraud.
10.  On 11 December 2003 the court ordered that the applicant should serve a prison sentence imposed on him by a final judgment given in another criminal case concurrently with the present detention.
11.  Hearings in the case were held on 7 January, 18 February and 25 October 2004. On the latter date the applicant was convicted as charged.
12. The applicant submitted envelopes of two letters sent to him by the Court on 15 January 2004 and 30 March 2004. The envelope of the first letter bears the stamp “Censored (cenzurowano) – the Wodzisław Śląski District Court – Date”, signed with an illegible signature. The envelope of the second letter bears the full official stamp of the Wodzisław Śląski District Court and a handwritten note “censorship” (cenzura), accompanied by a handwritten date, 9 April 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in İstanbul.
6.  On 31 March 1983 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 2464) in Şarköy, measuring 690 m2. On 22 January 1984, following an official cadastre measurement, the applicant's land was found to measure 564 m2. The remaining 126m2 was registered as belonging to the neighbouring plot no. 2463, owned by Mr A.Ö.
7.  On 15 November 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against A.Ö. in the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, challenging the accuracy of the new measurement and requesting that the disputed land be re-registered in her name.
8.  The Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held thirty hearings between 15 November 1993 and 13 July 1999.
9.  An on-site inspection was conducted on 13 July 1994 to which the applicant objected.
10.  On 31 January 1995 the applicant referred to another proceeding that had taken place before the Şarköy Magistrate Court which was linked to her case and requested the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction to examine the case file no. 1983/183. At the next hearing held on 4 April 1995 the applicant notified the court that the case-file brought from the archives was wrong as she had quoted the wrong reference number previously.
11.  The correct file which was requested from the archives again could not be submitted to the court until 23 September 1997 due to, inter alia, the flooding of the archives.
12.  On 18 December 1997 the court decided to hold a second on-site inspection, the conduct of which was delayed to 23 June 1999 mainly due to adverse weather conditions.
13.  On 13 July 1999 the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction declared lack of jurisdiction as the on-site inspection revealed that the value of the plot of land in dispute was lower than 2,000,000 Turkish liras. The court held that, if the applicant still intended to pursue her claim, she should institute the proceedings before the Şarköy Magistrate's Court.
14.  On 21 July 2003, almost four years after the decision of the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, the applicant applied to the Şarköy Magistrate's Court.
15.  On 21 January 2004 the court granted the applicant's request and decided that the disputed land should be registered in her name.
16.  On 24 September 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
17.  The defendant requested the rectification of this decision. His request was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 13 January 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Teykovo, Ivanovo Region.
5.  The applicant is entitled to welfare payments for her children.  In 2001 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 2000.
6.  By default judgment of 21 November 2001 the Teykovo Town Court of the Ivanovo Region awarded 11,151.90 Russian roubles (RUB) in her favour. Ten days later the judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
7.  In June 2002 the welfare authority paid a part of the applicant's court award in the amount of RUB 1,928.63.
8.  In 2003 the applicant brought a fresh claim, seeking to have her court award linked to the rate of inflation.
9.  On 24 March 2003 the Teykovo Town Court awarded her RUB 1,854.39. The judgment became final ten days later and enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
10.  In 2004 the applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs concerning their failure to enforce the judgments of 21 November 2001 and 24 March 2003 in time.
11.  On 30 March 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo rejected the applicant's claims as groundless, having found that the delays in the enforcement proceedings had not been imputable to the bailiffs.
12.  On 12 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal.
13.  Thereafter the applicant unsuccessfully applied for a supervisory review of the judgment of 30 March 2004 and the decision of 12 May 2004.
14.  On 4 June 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant another part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 4,207.92.
15.  On 21 December 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant the remaining part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 6,869.74.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Khmelnitskiy.
5.  The applicant is a former military serviceperson. She retired in June 2001.
6.  On 22 April 2003 the Khmelnytsky City Court ordered the military unit A-0264 to pay the applicant UAH 2,207[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final on 23 May 2003.
7.  On 16 January 2004 the Pershotravnevy Bailiffs' Office of Chernivtsi (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) returned the writ of execution to the applicant due to the lack of funds on the debtor's bank account.
8.  On 5 April 2004 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Chernivtsi rejected the applicant's claim against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs.
9.  On 13 February 2006 the Bailiffs re-opened the enforcement proceedings and on 20 February 2006 joined them to other enforcement proceedings pending against the debtor.
10.  On 28 July 2006 the Bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant due to the lack of funds on the debtor's bank account.
11.  The judgment of 22 April 2003 remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Sidorovka, in the Rostov region of the Russian Federation.
6.  On 18 May 1999 the Rovenky Court (Ровеньківський міський суд Луганської області) awarded the applicant 8,895.36 hryvnyas (UAH) against his former Ukrainian employer, the State-owned OJSC Mine “Dzerzhynskogo” (Державне відкрите акціонерне товариство «Шахта ім. Дзержинського»), in disability benefits and other payments.
7.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.
8.  The debt was paid to the applicant in numerous small instalments, the last payment of UAH 363.46 having been made on 17 June 2005.
9.  As explained by the bailiffs' service, the enforcement of the judgment had been delayed on account of numerous reasons, including a prolonged reorganization of the debtor, insufficient funds and a tax lien imposed on its property, as well as a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of the State property.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933. He died on 2 July 2005. In a letter of 10 March 2006 the applicant's son, Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovych Fedortsi, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application.
5.  In December 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Moskovska State Mine (ДП “Шахта Московська”, hereafter “the Mine”) seeking recovery of occupational disability allowance arrears.
6.  On 22 February 2000 the Shakhtarsk Town Court (Шахтарський міський суд, hereafter “the Shakhtarsk Court”) found in part for the applicant and awarded him 2,108.64 Ukrainian Hryvnas[1] (UAH) in compensation for allowance arrears. Considering this sum insufficient, the applicant appealed.
7.  On 20 March 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд) partially quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
8.  On 24 May 2000 the Shakhtarsk Court allowed the applicant's claim in part and awarded him UAH 3,616.63[2] in compensation for allowance arrears. The applicant again appealed.
9.  On 11 September 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
10.  On 21 November 2000 the Shakhtarsk Court raised the applicant's award up to UAH 3,980.16[3]. This judgment was not appealed against.
11.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) a request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 21 November 2000 under the new cassation procedure. On 18 September 2001 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected his request.
12.  On 14 December 2002 the Shakhtarsk Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ держаної виконавчої служби Шахтарського міського управління юстиції, hereafter “the Shakhtarsk Bailiffs' Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the Shakhtarsk Court's judgment of 21 November 2000.
13.  On 24 July 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (Міністерство палива і енергетики) decided to wind up the Mine.
14.  On 28 August 2001 the Shakhtarsk Bailiffs' Service remitted the applicant's writ of execution and enforcement case-file to the Mine's liquidation commission.
15.  On 3 December 2002 the applicant was paid the court award in full. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were terminated.